<p>My sister wanted a Mustang before she left to college. Me? I want a budget to build my first PC.</p>
<p>I'm a die-hard gamer, but I've never had a real gaming PC before. Now I know I won't have globs of time to kill (especially with an engineering major...ugh), but I'll have withdrawls if I don't get a healthy serving of bashing in virtual heads every weekend or so.</p>
<p>But there's no way I can lob around a giant desktop. And a laptop of equal caliber would cost TONS of money. So I'm thinking of an alternative:</p>
<p>What if I combo an $800 desktop with a really cheap netbook? That way, I get both portability and raw power. How practical is this and have any of you done this?</p>
<p>And for the more technical crowd:</p>
<p>Which CPU would be best for a university? I know Intel processors, especially overclockable ones, are king in gaming as of now. But I'm afraid that four cores won't be as useful as the eight cores I can get with an AMD processor. I don't expect to be doing heavy video editing, but I'm not sure if the extra cores would be good for an engineer.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>I can’t comment on bringing both a loptop and a desktop, but I can definitely talk about desktop Intel chips vs desktop AMD chips.</p>
<p>Barring price, I’d recommend the quad-core Intel chip. Single-thread performance CRUSHES what AMD has to offer. It’s not even close.</p>
<p>Also, you should probably consider the heat that these chips generate and the power that they consume. AMD’s Piledriver microarchitecture is absurdly inefficient and throws off a ton of heat (to be fair, it IS better than Bulldozer in that regard). It’s basically AMD’s version of NetBurst. Intel’s chips are much more efficient. Don’t even look at Kaveri for serious gaming.</p>
<p>With that said, AMD’s offerings are superior in terms of bang for the buck. At microcenter (which I find consistently has the best prices on CPU’s), an FX 8320 is $60 less than an i5 4590k. </p>
<p>Above the 8320, you’re essentially paying higher clock speeds (and higher power draw), though I do believe that the FX-9590 (and 9370) has a modified cache design.</p>
<p>Overall, the Intel chip is better for gaming. An i5 + gtx 970 would be a very good rig. Sorry if I rambled there.</p>
<p>@hungryteenager </p>
<p>I see. I’d much rather splurge a little and dish out the extra cash for an i5 4690K. They seem like VERY good chips and more than capable of running whatever programs I’ll have to be running. And even if there comes a time when a few more cores would come in handy, I can just switch out the intel for an AMD, right? </p>
<p>I can’t decide between the r9 290 or a GTX 970. I know the 970 is a powerhouse and trumps the r9 290, but AMD is offering <em>FOUR</em> free AAA titles with purchase of an r9 290. <em>sigh</em> And I’d be saving a little cash for a GPU that’s still pretty capable, if not comparable to the 970. How important is Physx on the NVIDIA cards?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Yeah, at that price, the r9 290 might be a better deal. </p>
<p>My main reservation with it is the AWFUL thermals of those cards. The r9 290 uses around 50% more power than the GTX 970 and produced much more heat. That’s not a dealbreaker, but it should definitely be a major consideration. You’ll need to get a bigger power supply, and preferably a more efficient one.</p>
<p>Here are a couple to consider:</p>
<p><a href=“Are you a human?”>Are you a human?;
<p><a href=“Are you a human?”>Are you a human?;
<p>These are a bit higher than the general recommendation, but you should never skimp on your power supply. Also, make sure to get a beefy cooler if you do get the r9. I recommend the Sapphire Tri-X or the MSI GAMING. Also, make sure that you have good exhaust in your case, or you run the risk of overheating.</p>
<p>I’m really not too sure about how big of a deal PhysX is. In a few games, it can definitely improve the visuals. For example, Witcher 3 will probably look much better with PhysX handling all of the fur and hair effects.</p>
<p>If you do get the GTX 970, do NOT buy EVGA. I repeat. DO NOT BUY EVGA. Preferably, get MSI. Much higher quality.</p>
<p>Again, sorry if I rambled a bit. Let me know if I left anything out.</p>
<p>I was just about to raise this question. My son will be bringing his home-built desktop gaming machine with a quad-core CPU and advanced GPU. But he wants a light note taking/word processing machine for schlepping around campus. Is 11" too small? Is an atom processor too weak? I saw an 11" machine with an atom processor for only $200 on Amazon.</p>
@latichever
Which atom processor? A quad-core Silvermont chip may (and that’s a BIG may) be good enough for a secondary laptop, but I don’t have any personal experience with the current generation. Anything less is crap.
For under $200, you can get the HP Stream 11 (link below), which is pretty much the bare minimum that I’d recommend. It comes with a dual-core haswell celery chip, and should be much faster than any atom. The 11-inch screen comes down to personal preference, so I can’t offer any input there.
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/HP-Stream-11-Signature-Edition-Laptop/productID.309174400
My bad, the Stream 11 uses a Bay Trail derived Celery, not Haswell. It won’t let me edit my post. Sorry for the slip-up